Anyone get the feeling that Leighton will not be dressed as the backup when the season starts? I have to think they are either going with one of our prospects as the backup, or that Leighton is just waming the seat until said prospect is ready to go in the minors.
I'm not that in tune with our organizational depth at goalie. Who do we have in the system? And is there any chance someone moves up to the NHL this season?
For the record I'm a Leighton supporter, he hasn't had the best luck in his career, and I just think he is a good guy and is capable of backing up Bryz for 15 games or so (yes that would mean Bryz plays high 70's, which I think he might this year).
Having someone like Hovinen ride the bench as a back-up in the NHL is terrible for his development when he could be getting accustomed to the NA game as the starter in the AHL. But I could see the second part of that paragraph come true if 1) Hovinen looks good in the AHL by the half-way mark and b) Leighton sucks big time as the back-up
Either way it will be Bryz as the starter and Leighton as the back-up at the start of the season.
in no way whatsoever is it different. If a team wanted to have him on their team, for less than what he is making with his current contract, they would have picked him up.
Here's an easy fact: He ****ing sucks, no team wants him, and if no team wanted him at less than what he is making now, no one wants him at all.
I'll try to make it simple to understand.
During the season when players are placed on waivers almost every team is set with personnel. This would include NHL rosters as well as AHL teams. Most teams enter a season with a starting goalie, a backup, and at least two more in their system.
When the regular season is coming to an end in the NHL/AHL, scouts and other personnel begin to work on evaluating players for next seasons rosters. This is when most openings would become available for goaltenders.
Teams rarely acquire back up goaltenders during a season, unless there is a slew of injuries at the position from their NHL back up down to several goalies on the farm club.
As history and the facts show, back up goalies are acquired 95% of the time in the off season when teams are actively looking to solidify and deepen the position. No one is shopping for waived goalies in January, unless they are GMing an X-Box franchise on NHL 13 in their mothers basement.
Ask an NHL personnel guy if teams scout the waiver wire in the middle of January looking for back up goalies, or if teams primarily fill the position during the off season. My firm has represented people in the game for 20+ years. I know how it works chief.
During the season when players are placed on waivers almost every team is set with personnel. This would include NHL rosters as well as AHL teams. Most teams enter a season with a starting goalie, a backup, and at least two more in their system.
When the regular season is coming to an end in the NHL/AHL, scouts and other personnel begin to work on evaluating players for next seasons rosters. This is when most openings would become available for goaltenders.
Teams rarely acquire back up goaltenders during a season, unless there is a slew of injuries at the position from their NHL back up down to several goalies on the farm club.
As history and the facts show, back up goalies are acquired 95% of the time in the off season when teams are actively looking to solidify and deepen the position. No one is shopping for waived goalies in January, unless they are GMing an X-Box franchise on NHL 13 in their mothers basement.
Ask an NHL personnel guy if teams scout the waiver wire in the middle of January looking for back up goalies, or if teams primarily fill the position during the off season. My firm has represented people in the game for 20+ years. I know how it works chief.
I gotta go with 35 on this one. Dudes clear waivers all the time and are signed after clearing waivers (or even traded). If you need a guy mid-season, you get him. If you have a backup goalie mid-season (as most teams do) why would you claim another one? You would likely have to send your current goalie through waivers to make the room. It makes little sense to think that a guy, especially a backup goalie, that clears waivers means he won't get a deal in the off season.
During the season when players are placed on waivers almost every team is set with personnel. This would include NHL rosters as well as AHL teams. Most teams enter a season with a starting goalie, a backup, and at least two more in their system.
When the regular season is coming to an end in the NHL/AHL, scouts and other personnel begin to work on evaluating players for next seasons rosters. This is when most openings would become available for goaltenders.
Teams rarely acquire back up goaltenders during a season, unless there is a slew of injuries at the position from their NHL back up down to several goalies on the farm club.
As history and the facts show, back up goalies are acquired 95% of the time in the off season when teams are actively looking to solidify and deepen the position. No one is shopping for waived goalies in January, unless they are GMing an X-Box franchise on NHL 13 in their mothers basement.
Ask an NHL personnel guy if teams scout the waiver wire in the middle of January looking for back up goalies, or if teams primarily fill the position during the off season. My firm has represented people in the game for 20+ years. I know how it works chief.
Wrong again. I said nothing about waiver claims, you brought that to the discussion. I'm talking about this off season when we signed him, not when he was waived. Nice straw man. I'll post it again, so try not to change the circumstances or change the meaning.
So for the second time it should be clear for you, nothing about the time ML was placed on waivers. Have a waiver debate with someone else. Different time, different circumstances, not even close.
No one put words in your mouth. It's not a strawman, I'm just not having the argument on your terms. If I want to cite evidence to prove a point I will. The fact that you don't see the difference is telling.
No one put words in your mouth. It's not a strawman, I'm just not having the argument on your terms. If I want to cite evidence to prove a point I will. The fact that you don't see the difference is telling.
I do see the difference and pointed it out. I stated if the Flyers didn't resign ML, someone else would have. You then wanted to go back 7 months and try to discuss the period during which he was waived.
I never brought up anything about the time he was waived and the circumstances around it. That's your issue to argue with someone else. You don't have to cite any evidence of anything. No one asked you to do so.
Start another thread about why ML wasn't picked up 7 months ago when he was waived if you can't understand the difference.
If it's so funny, how about we each put up 5K, winner gives it to charity. Next time you're in Philly you're more than welcome to visit out offices. We will have the crow ready for you when you arrive.
Now put your money where your big mouth is........
I do see the difference and pointed it out. I stated if the Flyers didn't resign ML, someone else would have. You then wanted to go back 7 months and try to discuss the period during which he was waived.
You defended the signing. I disagree with you on whether or not it was a good signing, but I'm not even talking about that. Someone else brought up his being waived and I cited his not being claimed as further evidence that he sucks. I didn't point to his lack of a claim to support an argument about his signing, because I didn't even make one.
My point this whole time has been that he sucks. If Michael Leighton was a high quality back up or low quality starter, someone would've picked him up for 750k. The leafs needed help for sure, lots of teams needed help in net. They didn't turn to Leighton because he sucked just as bad as the guys they were already losing with, possibly worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING
I never brought up anything about the time he was waived and the circumstances around it. That's your issue to argue with someone else. You don't have to cite any evidence of anything. No one asked you to do so.
I get that you didn't bring it up, numb nuts. No one said that you brought it up. FFS. It was brought up to make a point about the issue I was arguing with you (Michael Leighton's abilities as a goalie). Or are we only allowed to discuss the details of the issue that you deem fit to bring up?
You're either incredibly slow, or are deflecting. Also, a real professional who works in the industry is unlikely to have so much to prove on a message board. They most likely wouldn't give a ****. The asking for a 5k wager is a nice move too. You know damn well he's not going to be able to take that bet. Nobodies fooled by it.
What is your real name? In what capacity do you function at your firm? What firm is it? Odds are you've either been a janitor at a small firm for three months, or you're full of crap entirely. You neither articulate nor present yourself like a business professional of any kind, let alone one who works in the professional hockey industry.
Last edited by Giroux tha Damaja: 08-26-2012 at 02:00 AM.
Reason: edited to fix spelling.
If it's so funny, how about we each put up 5K, winner gives it to charity. Next time you're in Philly you're more than welcome to visit out offices. We will have the crow ready for you when you arrive.
Now put your money where your big mouth is........
I can't believe people are complaining about our back up who is making minimum wage. Why dont we talk about the overpaid bum as our starting goalie. The guy is a backup or bottom 3rd starting goalie in the league but yet gets paid like a top 5 and he is signed for 8 more years. I love most of holmgrens moves he's made but the Bryzaster contract is by far the worse.
I can't believe people are complaining about our back up who is making minimum wage. Why dont we talk about the overpaid bum as our starting goalie. The guy is a backup or bottom 3rd starting goalie in the league but yet gets paid like a top 5 and he is signed for 8 more years. I love most of holmgrens moves he's made but the Bryzaster contract is by far the worse.
What is your real name? In what capacity do you function at your firm? What firm is it? Odds are you've either been a janitor at a small firm for three months, or you're full of crap entirely. You neither articulate nor present yourself like a business professional of any kind, let alone one who works in the professional hockey industry.
First of all I don't claim to "work in the professional hockey industry." This is a hockey discussion board. If you're looking for industry professionals here, you're more naive than I thought. I'll restate it for you, since last time you understood it the second time you read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING
My firm has represented people in the game for 20+ years. I know how it works chief.
That doesn't say I work in the professional hockey industry. Here's a simpler explanation.
I'm a senior partner in a law firm. There are 11 senior partners, 6 associates, 4 practice assistants, and 2 paralegals. Five of my fellow partners have represented coaches, players, scouts, GM's, various front office personnel, and several ownership groups across the four major sports.
My practice group specializes in sports marketing, naming rights, arena management, and revenue stream maximization.
Since you're local, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and come to the "janitors office?"
First of all I don't claim to "work in the professional hockey industry." This is a hockey discussion board. If you're looking for industry professionals here, you're more naive than I thought. I'll restate it for you, since last time you understood it the second time you read it.
If I am looking for industry professionals on this board? I'm not sure why you would think that given the tone of my previous posts. That said there are probably more people on this board who's work is directly involved in some way with hockey than there are lawyers, they just don't run their mouths about it or name drop nameless firms to try and get some credibility.
Your reading comprehension and difficulty you seem to experience keeping up in general don't really lend any credibility to the possibility of you being a lawyer. Then again Nancy Grace was somehow a lawyer, so what the hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING
That doesn't say I work in the professional hockey industry. Here's a simpler explanation.
I'm a senior partner in a law firm. There are 11 senior partners, 6 associates, 4 practice assistants, and 2 paralegals. Five of my fellow partners have represented coaches, players, scouts, GM's, various front office personnel, and several ownership groups across the four major sports.
My practice group specializes in sports marketing, naming rights, arena management, and revenue stream maximization.
That sounds like working in the professional hockey industry to me, but anyway. The question remains, what firm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING
Since you're local, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and come to the "janitors office?"
If I am looking for industry professionals on this board? I'm not sure why you would think that given the tone of my previous posts. That said there are probably more people on this board who's work is directly involved in some way with hockey than there are lawyers, they just don't run their mouths about it or name drop nameless firms to try and get some credibility.
I don't need to establish credibility with you or anyone else on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja
Your reading comprehension and difficulty you seem to experience keeping up in general don't really lend any credibility to the possibility of you being a lawyer. Then again Nancy Grace was somehow a lawyer, so what the hell.
Sounds like you're projecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja
That sounds like working in the professional hockey industry to me, but anyway. The question remains, what firm?
No, it actually means my partners work in the professional hockey industry.
My sentiments exactly. I wish the Flyers weren't put in a position to have to pick this clown up in the first place back when Emery went down. He had a nice little run and everybody thought he was the next Ken Dryden or something. He has stuck around like a bad recurring hemorrhoid ever since....I hope this is the year he proves once AGAIN he's NOT NHL material no matter if he only plays a dozen games or so. If for some freak of nature reason he takes away Bryz's job, well we'll have bigger problems to debate.
Summary: Another NHL audition for Leighton....cool
Quote:
From day one main concern with the signing is that while Leighton has played in a backup role in the NHL before, he has never been especially effective in the role. He has tended to play better with regular work.
For his NHL career, Leighton has played 104 games, with a 2.92 GAA and .902 save percentage. When he there is a gap of five or fewer games between appearances, his career numbers are a 2.85 GAA and .909 save percentage. Conversely, when he's gone inactive for more than five games at a time, his GAA is 3.19 and his save percentage has dropped to .892. The latter numbers aren't horrific, but they aren't going to hold down a backup job in the long term, either
